clear_check_notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only completed notes are removed, open notes remain untouched, and that the action is a destructive cleanup beyond the checkbox action. It does not mention irreversibility or confirmation, but the destructive scope is clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose, then providing a short rationale and an Args section. The explanatory sentences are relevant, though the date reference adds a minor extra detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the trigger, the deletion scope, and the preservation of open notes. However, it does not fully specify the interaction between nr and nur_erledigte or what the tool returns after success, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains 'nr' as a single note number with the special value 0 meaning no single deletion, and 'nur_erledigte' as a way to discard all completed notes while preserving open ones. There is slight ambiguity about the effect of nur_erledigte=false and how it interacts with nr.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete verb-resource pair ('Räumt Prüfhinweise weg') and identifies the scope: only processed check notes are removed. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like report_check_note, but the cleanup semantics are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: checking a note alone is not enough, completed notes remain in the list and hide new ones, so the user should call this tool after implementing a note. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the triggering condition is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.